State and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States Essay -- Suprem

State and Federal Authority in Screws v. coupled States Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the early hours of January 30, 1943, Robert Bobby Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, plain-spoken Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley1 while in their custody for the supposed theft of a tire2 Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, night policeman, and a noncombatant deputized specifically for the arrest.3 Without forever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a takings of a fractured skull unawares after his arrival at an Alb either infirmary that morning.4 The NAACP and FBI investigated Halls death in the following months and federal official charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for impingement of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person whitethorn nether comment of any law willfully deprive a person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the typography and laws of the unite States.5 subsequently being found guilty in the dismantle courts, the defendants brought their case to the unconditional approach on appeal, alleging that they had violated a province rather than federal law and, consequently, could non be held liable under Section 20. The supreme hails central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to construe the intent and breadth of Section 20 in order to measure its constitutionality in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the commentary of state action at law and the indefinite nature of the rights protected by the statute. such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along buddy-buddy constitutional lines while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the degrade co... ...41 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 151-152 (1945).42 Ibid., 143.43 Ibid., 111.44 Ibid., 145-146.45 Ibid., 149.46 Memorandum by Mr. just ness capital of Mississippi, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 5.47 See Justice Murphys dissent, wherein he insists that it is idle to subcontract on opposite situations that might involve 20 which are not now onward us. Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 136 (1945).48 Felix forthrightfurter to Chief Justice gemstone, November 30, 1944, Harlan Fiske scar Papers.49 Justice straight-from-the-shoulder Murphys Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.50 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 139 (1945).51 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 6.52 Harlan Fiske Stone to William O. Douglas, November 25, 1944, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers. State and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States turn up -- SupremState and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the early hours of January 30, 1943, Robert Bobby Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Scr ews, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley1 while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire2 Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, night policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest.3 Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an Albany hospital that morning.4 The NAACP and FBI investigated Halls death in the following months and federal charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may under color of any law willfully deprive a person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.5 After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held lia ble under Section 20. The Supreme Courts central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to interpret the intent and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite nature of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co... ...41 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 151-152 (1945).42 Ibid., 143.43 Ibid., 111.44 Ibid., 145-146.45 Ibid., 149.46 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 5.47 See Justice Murphys dissent, wherein he insists that it is idle to speculate on other situations that might involve 20 which are not now before us. Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 136 (1945).48 Felix Frankfurter to Chief Justice Stone, November 30, 1944, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers.49 Justice Frank Murphys Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.50 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 139 (1945).51 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 6.52 Harlan Fiske Stone to William O. Douglas, November 25, 1944, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers.